HULK SMASH: Blockbusters

From Film Crit Hulk Smash: THE AGE OF THE CONVOLUTED BLOCKBUSTER:

ALL OUR BIGGEST POPCORN MOVIES SEEM DESPERATE TO STRIVE FOR OBFUSCATION. AND AS HULK RECENTLY WALKED OUT OF A SCREENING OF STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, THE DEPTHS OF THIS REALITY HIT HULK DEAD ON… 

WE LIVE IN THE AGE OF THE CONVOLUTED BLOCKBUSTER.

I'll say it right out: this is a wonderful demolition of recent blockbusters that end up making little to no sense, either in the movie theatre or after (I'm not versed enough to call it a trend, though Hulk might be).  The impetus seems to be Star Trek: Into Darkness, which I saw a couple months ago and had a few problems with (pointed out superbly in this article as well).

Still.  Some of the main points from the article can easily be applied to writing novels as well as the screenplays.  Such as:

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE STORIES IN ABRAMS’ WORK WE DON’T FIND MUCH IN THE WAY OF STORY AT ALL. WE FIND PLOTS. IT’S ALL MASTER SECRETIVE PLANS BUILT ON REVEALS UPON REVEALS UPON REVEALS. [...] WE WATCH FILMS WHERE THE MECHANICAL PLOT DICTATES CHARACTER REACTIONS, RATHER THAN CHARACTER’S ACTIONS DICTATING THE STORY.

and

BY OBFUSCATING CLARITY IN THE NAME OF A GRANDIOSE PUZZLE, WE CAN’T HELP BUT GET IN THE WAY OF THE OPTIMAL EMOTIONAL RESONANCE IN OUR STORIES. WE MAKE THEM FEEL LIKE CONSTRUCTIONS.

and

THERE'S CAUSE. THERE'S EFFECT. AND THOSE TWO THINGS ARE  GROUNDED IN A THROUGH-LINE OF TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE IT STEMS FROM LASER-FOCUSED OBJECTIVES THAT GUIDE THE SHIFTING NARRATIVE. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THERE’S ALWAYS A POINT TO ALL OF IT, AS THE ENDGAME OF ANY GOOD MYSTERY HAS TO RESONATE.

and... and... and just read the article, alright?  I can't keep quoting it or I'll just be reprinting the whole thing here, practically verbatim.

But on to the practical parts.

Which has more inherent drama, a stranger telling you he is your long-lost brother and being chased, or your actual brother you've known your life telling you he is being chased by cops?  By analogy, when a mystery person has things happen to them, we care less, but when a character we've come to know has things happen to them, we're invested.  This requires setup.

About reveals:

ALL A WRITER NEEDS TO MAKE A REVEAL WORK IS TO ASK TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS: “WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC CONFLICT BEING CREATED BY NOT KNOWING THIS INFORMATION?” AND “WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC CONFLICT CREATED BY NOW KNOWING THIS INFORMATION?” AND DEPENDING ON THE STRENGTH AND VIABILITY OF THAT CONFLICT YOU HAVE YOUR ANSWER ON WHEN TO REVEAL.

...and in the course of reading the article find out how Finding Nemo could have been a huge flop.

So what do you think?  What are the best pieces of writing advice you find in the article?  Or can you convince me it's wrong, somehow?